Reese & Anor v Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 387

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Reese & Anor v Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 387 PARTIES: KIMBERLEY REESE (first applicant) BENJAMIN WEBB (second applicant) v TORQUE CONCRETING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: BDL217 – 25 MATTER TYPE: Building matters DELIVERED ON: 21 August 2026 HEARING DATE: 6 August 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Paratz AM ORDERS: Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd is to pay to Kimberley Reese and Benjamin Webb the amount of Twenty-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Dollars and Fifty-Five Cents ($28,460.55). CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – where the homeowner had engaged a builder to install a concrete slab and to install a shed – where no written contract in compliance with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991(Qld) was entered into – where the work was subject to a Direction to Rectify issued by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission – where the work was not rectified – where a duty of care was found – where the work was found to have been performed negligently. Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), sch 1B s 13, s 14, s 33 Cerda v Jacob [2020] QCATA 57 Chau’s & Sons Pty Ltd (t/as Holiday Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Qld) v Karam [2024] QCAT 476 Dvorak v Jensen [2025] QCAT 110 -- 1 of 7 -- 2 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicants: Self-represented Respondent: Graeme Boulton, the director of Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Benjamin Webb is the owner of a property at Churchill in Queensland, where he lives together with his partner Kimberley Reese (‘the customers’). [2] Graeme Boulton is a Director of Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd (‘the builder’) and appeared on its behalf. [3] Ms Reese accepted a quote from Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd (‘the builder’) dated 3 May 2023 to install 198 m² of plain concrete slab, a 3 x 13.5 flyover patio roof, and an 11 x 6 shed for $78,100.00. [4] No formal contract in accordance with the provisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the QBCC Act’) was entered into for the performance of the works. [5] No specifications or plans were attached to the quote. [6] The work commenced on 19 May 2023, and was completed on 15 July 2023. The final inspection certificate was issued on 5 December 2023. [7] The customers paid the builder the full amount of $78,100.00. [8] The customers subsequently made complaints to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) in relation to defects in the work. [9] A QBCC Inspector inspected the work and issued a Direction to Rectify and/or Complete No. 113572 on 16 January 2025. The work required to be rectified was as follows: The installation of the plain concrete driveway to the front of the shed and the concrete surrounding the stormwater pit to the right of the shed does not comply with the AS 3727.1 2001 Sec 5 (5.3.2) concrete cover and AS 3727.1 2010 Sec 5 (5.4.3) isolation joints in that the minimum concrete cover for steel reinforcement should be 30mm and isolation joints are to be provided to allow vertical and horizontal movement between the pavement and the structure, resulting in an unsatisfactory completed construction method. Pertains to item 2 on the complaint form. [10] The builder failed to rectify the items, and the QBCC advised the owner on 24 February 2025 that the direction items had not been completed satisfactorily. [11] The QBCC also advised in its letter of 24 February 2025 that the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme was unable to provide cover for any of the items which had not been rectified. [12] An application for domestic building disputes was filed in the Tribunal on 16 June 2025. Directions were given by the Tribunal for the filing of a Response, and for the filing of Statements of Evidence. -- 2 of 7 -- 3 [13] The customers filed Statements of Evidence together with repair quotes. The builder did not file a Response or any Statements of Evidence. [14] Neither party called any witnesses other than themselves at the hearing. Discussion [15] The claims by the customers relate to: (a) rectification of the slab for the shed to provide for a 1m wide and 200mm deep footing to enable a 2 post hoist to be attached, which they advised the builder at the outset they intended to install. (b) removal and replacement of the concrete slab external to the shed which was not constructed in accordance with the relevant codes, and which displayed significant cracking shortly after construction. (c) removal and replacement of the roller door to the shed which was not installed correctly, and was damaged by the installer in attempting to rectify it. (d) costs incurred by the customers related to the proceedings. [16] The customers claim at the hearing was as follows: (a) Filing fee – $379.50 (b) Document preparation costs – $92.80 (c) ConScan testing – slab thickness – $350.00 (d) Rectification of shared slab thickness – $1,800.00 (e) Fence damage replacement – $38.25 (f) Rectification of defective concrete around shared – $20,685 (g) Replacement of the shed roller door – $5,115.00 [17] The customers also claimed interest upon any amount awarded. [18] The builder was a holder of a licence with the QBCC at the time of conducting the works. [19] A Quotation in writing dated 3 May 2023 was given to Ms Reese and accepted by her by signing it. Mr Webb said that he had authorised Ms Reese to enter into the works which were to his benefit as the owner of the property. [20] Ms Reese has a potential claim against the builder as she is a contracting party. Mr Webb has a potential claim against the builder as he is the owner of the property to which the building works have been done, and become part of his property as fixtures. [21] As the works were for an amount greater than $3,300, a written contract, dated and signed by each of the parties, is required under section 13 of Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act. [22] As the value of the works is greater than $19,999, the contract is a ‘level 2 regulated contract’ under section 14 of the QBCC Act. [23] The quote did not constitute a complying contract under the QBCC Act as: -- 3 of 7 -- 4 (a) it was issued by the builder, but was not signed by it; and (b) it provided for a 50% deposit, which contravened the provisions of section 33(1) of Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act which provides that for a level 2 regulated contract, the deposit cannot exceed 5% of the contract price. [24] It is well established that a residential building contract that is not compliant cannot be enforced having regard to contract law. In Cerda v Jacob,1 the Appeal Tribunal held as follows: [24] In our view s 13(5) and s 14(10) of Schedule 1B are clear on their face. A regulated contract that is not in writing, signed by the parties and dated is of no effect, with the consequence that the contract is void and unenforceable by either party. These minimum mandatory requirements are neither difficult for builders and building owners to comply with nor onerous in circumstances where persons contract for the performance of domestic building work. If parties contract for the performance of domestic building work without complying with these requirements they do so at their own peril and without the protections afforded by a contract or the statutory warranties implied into such contracts. [25] However, if certain requirements are met, an owner may have a claim in negligence against a builder, notwithstanding that no enforceable contract is in place. Those requirements were discussed by the Tribunal in the 2025 decision of Dvorak v Jensen2 which adopted the reasoning of the 2024 decision of the Tribunal in Chau’s & Sons Pty Ltd (t/as Holiday Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Qld) v Karam.3 [26] In this matter, I am satisfied there is a claim in negligence available to each of Ms Reese and Mr Webb against the builder, as the builder owed a duty of care to each of them in carrying out the building work. [27] At the hearing, the builder challenged the price of the quotes obtained by the customers for repair of the driveway, and replacement of the garage door, as not being fair and reasonable. However, he did not adduce any evidence at the hearing from any independent witness as to what a fair and reasonable price for those items would be. [28] The builder maintained that he was able to give estimates due to his experience as a builder. He said that the company had been operating since 2001. [29] The evidence of the builder conflicted with the evidence of Ms Reese as to the discussions held between them prior to entering into the quote in relation to the concrete requirements for the hoist installation, and as to other matters. [30] The builder said at the hearing that he had forgotten about the hoist requirement when he prepared his quote. However, in a text message sent by him to Ms Reese on 3 May 2023 (the date of the quote) he specifically referred to the hoist as being included, saying as follows: ‘Shed is 1 large single door for easy access to your hoist. I thought that would be more appropriate but can be changed includes 2 x whirly birds, side access and 1 x window for workshop’. 1 [2020] QCATA 57. 2 [2025] QCAT 110. 3 [2024] QCAT 476. -- 4 of 7 -- 5 [31] The builder challenged the need to remove and replace all of the external concrete slab, suggesting that it was only needed to remove and replace sections only. [32] The external concrete works were inspected by a QBCC inspector on 13 January 2025, which led to the issuing of the Direction to Rectify No. 9169167. The inspector recorded the findings of his inspection as follows:4 1) The complaint is in relation to cracking to the concrete driveway near the shed. 2) The concrete driveway consisted of plain concrete with a broom finish, sawcut control joints and he inspected was approximately 54 sq m. 3) As per quote number 3038 supplied by Torque Concreting and Constructions Pty Ltd, the shed driveway consisted of SL72 and 30mpa/10mm aggregate concrete. 4) Sawcut control joints basics to the driveway at the front of the shed were measured between 4m and 2.1m centres, the depth of the control joints (weakened plane joints) measured between approx. 20mm and 25mm, isolation joints by way of ableflex were noted between the shed slab and the retaining wall to the right-hand side of the shed and between the driveway and left-hand side retaining wall. No isolation joints were observed around the stormwater pit to the front-right of the shed, along the front of the shed between the shed slab and the driveway where separation (shrinkage) between the driveway and shed slab was approximately 1.5mm or between the driveway and the rear retaining wall including concrete sleepers and around galvanised posts. 5) Cracking to the driveway in front of the shed was observed in various areas in the pattern of the reinforcing and the crack widths measured and are noted as being between approximately 0.5mm and 1mm. 6) An isolated survey (to an area approximately 0.8m x 2m of the driveway in front of the shed) of concrete cover to the reinforcing was undertaken using a Cover-meter and the results range between 15mm to 37mm of concrete cover to reinforcing. [33] The builder did not comply with the QBCC Direction to rectify those works, which has led to this claim being pursued by the customers. [34] The builder challenged the quote for rectification provided by Xtreme Landworx dated 21 August 2025 in the amount of $20,685 as being excessive. He gave evidence that in his view the current ‘going rate’ for the concrete slab would have been $120.00 per square metre plus earthworks of $1,500.00, plus dumping costs of $500.00, which would give a total of $9,560.00 as a fair rectification cost. [35] The customers obtained two quotes for rectification of the external slab – a quote from Xtreme Landworx dated 21 August 2025 for $20,685.50, and a quote from Hard Core Concreting dated 22 April 2025 for $18,810.00. Both quotes provided for the complete removal of the existing slab and replacement. 4 QBCC Resolution Services, Initial Inspection Report, 13 January 2025, p. 6. -- 5 of 7 -- 6 [36] There is a difference of $1,875.50 between those quotes. The Xtreme Landworx is the more recent quote, and is more detailed as to the scope of works, and I accept it as the preferable quote to rely on. [37] The builder challenged the quote for the need to remove and replace the shed roller door but acknowledged that there had been issues as to the raising and lowering of the door which he understood his subcontractor had attended to, and that the door may have experienced problems due to wind affecting it. [38] Ms Reese gave clear evidence, which was supported by detailed and well recorded quotes invoices and substantiation of her claims. [39] Mr Boulton presented overall as being disorganised in relation to his paperwork, having regard to the poor state of the contractual documents he prepared (there being no written contract, and no plans or specifications); his failure to comply with the directions of the Tribunal as to the filing of a Response, and his failure to file any statements of evidence in the proceedings. [40] Where the evidence of the builder conflicts with the evidence of Ms Reese, I prefer the evidence of Ms Reese. [41] Where the evidence of the builder conflicts with the quotes and invoices provided by the customers as to the scope of, or fair and reasonable cost of, rectification of the works, I do not accept the evidence of the builder. [42] I accept the quotes and invoices relied upon by the customers as being work that is reasonably required for rectification, and the amounts claimed as being fair and reasonable. [43] I find that the builder did not conduct the works to the standard of a reasonably competent builder, and was negligent in the conduct of the works, and is liable to the customers for the damages flowing from its negligent conduct. [44] I uphold the claims by the customers as to rectification, and find the amounts claimed by the customers to be fair and reasonable, having regard to the quotes and invoices supplied as follows, in the total amount of $27,638.25: (a) Installation of footing for the hoist - $1,800.00 • Xtreme Landworx invoice (b) Fence damage replacement – $38.25 • Metroll Invoice (c) Rectification of defective concrete around shed – $20,685.00 • Xtreme Landworx invoice (d) Replacement of shed roller door – $5,115.00 • Genuine Garage Doors quote [45] I uphold the claims by the customers as to costs incurred, and find the amounts claimed by the customers to be fair and reasonable having regard to the quotes and invoices supplied as follows, in the total amount of $ 822.30 (a) QCAT filing fee – $379.50 -- 6 of 7 -- 7 (b) Document preparation costs (cost of printing, copying and serving documents submitted with the original application) – $92.80 (i) ASIC invoice (ii) Officeworks photocopy charges (iii) Australia Post receipt (iv) Harvey Norman photo print invoice (c) ConScan testing – slab thickness – $350 (i) ConScan invoice [46] The total amount of the claims which I uphold is $28,460.55. [47] The customers have sought interest upon any amount awarded. However, there was no provision for interest in the quote which formed the basis of the contract, and no other basis for interest has been established. I do not allow any amount for interest. [48] I order that the builder pay the amount of $28,460.55 to the customers. -- 7 of 7 --